Posts from the Tennessee Category
Direct Shipping Licensing Updates
March 4th, 2010
Michigan
Direct shipping permits for Michigan are renewable on May 1. The annual renewal cost for the Michigan Permit is $100; the same as the initial permit fee. For those wineries that do not have a direct shipping permit for MI now is good time to consider applying. Licenses are valid from May 1 – April 30 and the $100 fee is not prorated. The permit allows wineries to ship up to 1,500 9-liter cases to Michigan consumers. Brand registration is required. This can be completed through the MLCC’s online label registration program for no fee. Sales tax and excise tax must be paid and reports must be filed.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire has updated its direct shipping permit application. The updated application is now available on Wine Institute’s website along with the instructions. Please be sure to complete the application in its entirety and attach all required documents. Incomplete applications will be returned. Applicants will be happy to note that there is no permit fee. Approved shippers are allowed to ship up to 60 containers of not more than 1 liter each to each consumer during a calendar year. Monthly reports and tax payments are required.
Tennessee
The Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission has updated their ”Direct Shipper Application Requirements – ABC” document posted on the TN ABC and Wine Institute websites. The original version of the document did not include the “Wholesale Gallonage Letter” requirement. The Wholesale Gallonage letter is one of 2 documents issued by the TN Department of Revenue that wineries must submit with their application. The second document is the “Certificate of Registration for Sales and Use Tax.” While the application on the TN Department of Revenue website says a bond is required, a bond is not required for wineries. For the TN DOR wholesale gallonage and sales and use tax application form, go to: http://www.state.tn.us/revenue/forms/general/f13005_1.pdf. Licenses are valid 1 year from the date issued and the annual license fee is $150.00. There is also a 1 time non-refundable application fee of $300. Additional information about the application process is available on the Wine Institute website. Wineries may also contact Sharon Loveall at the TN Alcoholic Beverage Commission with any questions about winery direct shipping permits at 615.741.1602, ext. 141
By Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Hidden Costs of Direct Shipping Licensing
March 3rd, 2010
Before jumping into a direct shipping program in a new state, wineries should consider their current prospect list, market potential, shipping difficulty and costs. When it comes to calculating start-up costs to enter a new state, there is often more than meets the eye. In addition to license fees, wineries may need to budget for a number of “hidden” fees including bonds, label registration fees and other application fees.
Bonds
Some states require wineries to obtain a bond in order to secure a direct shipping license. A bond is a written guaranty, purchased from a bonding company (usually an insurance firm or a surety company), to guarantee that all taxes due will be paid to the state. If there is a failure to pay, the bonding company will make good up to the amount of the bond.
Bonds for direct shippers range from $500-$1500 depending on the state, but premiums, or out-of-pocket costs, to wineries typically average around 10% of the total bond price, or $50-$180 out-of-pocket on an annual or biannual basis. Different bonding agents may quote different rates, so it pays to shop around.
Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Texas and Wisconsin all require that wineries secure a bond before submitting your license application. For wineries that ship 40,000 gallons or more annually, Oregon issues a bond document after the license application has been received but before the license is issued. Wineries that ship less than 40,000 gallons to Oregon annually can apply for a bond wavier.
Label Registration
Several states require brand or label registrations for direct shipping. Ohio, a state that 26% of direct shippers have in their program, requires wineries to register all the labels that will be shipped into the state for a one-time registration fee of $50 per label.
If that sounds pricey to you, consider Connecticut who charges $200 per label and requires labels to be re-registered every 3 years if they are still actively shipped into the state.
Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Virginia do not charge a fee though label or brand registration is required in these states.
Application Fees
Some states may require business, Secretary of State or tax registration, or other one-time application fees. This varies from state to state and depends on how your business is structured. Wineries that start shipping to Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia or Wisconsin may encounter one or more of these fees.
License, bond, label registration and application fees all factor into the true break-even costs of shipping to a new state. The key to ensuring a profitable direct shipping program is to research thoroughly in order to avoid getting caught off-guard with unexpected costs.
Notes on Wine Distribution v.32
February 4th, 2010
The latest version of “Notes on Wine Distribution”, by R. Corbin Houchins, is now available. Release 32 includes updates on legislation, litigation and general discussions on available distribution channels for wine. This release includes substantial changes, including new sections on age and identity, facial neutrality, and logistical support services, as well as updates to state summaries in Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Read about these and other updates that affect the way wine is sold and shipped within the United States.
If you are at all interested in the shipping and distribution of wine, this is an excellent resource that is well worth reading. You can view the most recent version of the document anytime by visiting the ShipCompliant Blog and clicking the link located under “Compliance Resources”, or by visiting CorbinCounsel.com and clicking on the home page link, “Notes on Wine Distribution.”
Tennessee Direct Shipper Applications and Instructions Available
August 24th, 2009
Wineries are now able to apply to the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission for a Direct Shipper license. Direct Shipper licensees may ship no more than 1 case (9 liters) of wine to a Tennessee consumer during a calendar month and total shipments to each consumer may not exceed 3 cases (27 liters) of wine during a calendar year. Only Tennessee consumers located in a wet region are allowed to receive wine shipments, and common carriers will not deliver shipments to an address that is located in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages. A complete list of jurisdictions that have approved sales of alcohol is available on the Wine Institute website.
The first step in the direct shipper application process is registering to pay taxes, by submitting an “Application for Registration” to the Department of Revenue. The “Application for Registration” form must be completed by hand (Do Not file online version of the application.) Direct Shippers should select “Wholesale Gallonage” and “Sales and Use Tax” in section 1 and describe their business activity as “direct shipping” in section 15. Direct Shipper’s are not required to post a bond.
Once the Department of Revenue has processed the application for registration the direct shipper applicant should receive two documents: a “Certificate of Registration” and a letter confirming the tax registration process has been completed. Do not submit the Direct Shipper License application to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission before receiving these documents. The confirmation letter issued by the Department of Revenue must be submitted with the Direct Shipper License application. Direct shipper license applicants must pay a one time non-refundable fee of $300.00 and an annual license fee of $150 to the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission before receiving their license. Payment totaling $450.00 should be included with the application packet. In addition, the following documents should be submitted with the direct shipper’s license: copies of contracts with common carriers shipping wine to Tennessee consumers (also known as “Alcohol Shipping Agreement”), a copy of the applicant’s organizational document, and a copy of the applicant’s federal basic permit.
The direct shipper’s license is valid for 1 year from the date of issue. Direct shipper’s must file reports, pay a state sales tax of 9.25% and pay excise tax. The Department of Revenue will send the appropriate reporting forms and instructions to licensees based on their filing status. The application forms and instructions are available on the Wine Institute website. Wineries should remember that shipping to consumers in Tennessee without a license is classified as a felony. Should you have any questions please contact Wine Institute’s State Relations Department at 415-356-7530 or abones@wineinstitute.org.
-Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Tennessee Direct Shipping Applications Available – What You Need to Know
July 15th, 2009
Tennessee direct shipping license applications are now available. While Tennessee officially became a Limited state on July 1, wineries cannot legally ship to this state until their direct shipping license has been approved.
The application states that direct shippers may only ship to wet areas within the state; a condition that may make the state slightly less available than initially anticipated. This requirement is different than those of other states such as Florida, New Hampshire and New York, where clearly defined dry areas are prohibited from shipping. Major cities such as Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga are all considered wet areas that are open for shipping.
Tennessee direct shipping license applications are available by directly contacting the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission at (615) 741-1602. The license requirements and application can also be viewed online. Wineries that prefer a full concierge service for obtaining their license can order online through easywinelicensing.com.
To obtain a direct shipping license, wineries must first register with the Tennessee Department of Revenue. Once this step is complete, wineries pursuing a direct shipping license must submit the following to the State of Tennessee ABC:
- License application (available from state)
- $450 fee ($300 one-time application fee + $150 licensee fee, payable upon approval of application)
- Copy of Certificate of Registration for Sales & Use Tax
- Copies of all contracts with common carriers that will ship wine to Tennessee residents
- Copy of the applicant’s organizational document (e.g. corporate charter or articles of organization)
- A copy of applicant’s Federal Basic Permit
Tennessee direct shipping licenses expire December 31 of every year, and renewal applications must be postmarked by January 9 of the following year to avoid a $250 citation.
Licensed wineries can ship a maximum of one case per month and up to three cases annually to Tennessee residents. Retailers are still prohibited from direct shipping to Tennessee.
Add Two to the List of Open States, and Many More Updates, Effective Today
July 1st, 2009
Tennessee, Kansas Open For Direct Shipping
Today, both Kansas and Tennessee open for direct shipping – the first two states to open in almost three years. These are the first states to change from Prohibited to Limited since Vermont in late 2006.
As of today, Kansas residents have direct access to up to twelve cases of wine per address from licensed wineries per year. Kansas special order direct shipping license applications are available online. After registering with the Secretary of State for $36, wineries must submit proof of business tax registration, a $50 license fee, a $50 application fee with their license application as well as post a $750 bond.
Nearly one month ago on June 5, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed Senate Bill 166 into law to open Tennessee for direct shipping on July 1. Tennessee ranks in the top 25 wine consuming states.
Both state licenses are available for order with full concierge service through easywinelicensing.com.
North Dakota Excise Tax Decreases
Beginning today, sparkling wine will be taxed at $0.50/gallon, down from $1.00/gallon.
Nevada State-Wide Sales Tax Increase
Effective July 1, Nevada has increased its Local School Support Tax from 2.25% to 2.6%; a 0.35% increase in state-wide sales tax. This new tax will be collected at a local level. Also, the 0.25% Collection Allowance, scheduled to increase back to 0.50%, remains in effect for sales and use taxes collected.
Local Tax Increases
The following local tax rates are effective today:
- In Arizona, the city of Kearny has increased its retail and use tax rates from 2.5% to 3.0%
- In California, voters in Los Angeles County approved a new 0.50% district tax increasing their tax rate to 9.75% (including the 8.25% state tax rate). Also, the City Council of Laguna Beach located in Orange County voted to repeal the 0.50% Temporary Transactions and Use Tax prior to its scheduled end date, lowering their tax rate to 8.75%
- In Georgia, the counties of Camden, McIntosh and Wayne will increase their local tax rates by 1%, making the total local option tax 3.0%
- In Washington, sales and use tax within all of Wahkiakum County will increase one-tenth of one percent. The new rate will be 7.6%
Ohio Electronic Filing
For Ohio Sales and Use tax semi-annual filers, the January – June return is the first return that is required to be filed online. There are two filing methods available to direct shippers to report Ohio sales taxes electronically:
- Express Data Entry – Upload a .CSV to the Ohio Business Gateway (OBG), and make any final adjustments on the OBG’s website
- eForms – Enter tax calculations step-by-step into Ohio’s web application
If you can’t decide which filing option is right for you, view a comparison of the different filing options (please note that TeleFile is not available for direct shippers). If you have any questions about the requirement, please visit Ohio’s Department of Taxation website, or call the Ohio DOT at 800-282-1784.
Kansas permit applications available, Tennessee coming soon…
June 26th, 2009
Late yesterday the Kansas ABC posted their applications for direct shipping on their website. Wine producers across the country can now apply for permission to direct ship wine to Kansas consumers effective July 1, 2009.
Kansas SB 212 was signed into law by Governor Kathleen Sebelius on April 10. Wineries interested in avoiding the hassle of the application process can purchase the license at www.easywinelicensing.com.
Licensed wineries will be able to ship up to 12 cases of wine per year to Kansas residents. To obtain a Kansas direct shipping license, wineries must pay a $50 license fee, a $50 registration fee, and post a $750 bond.
Tennessee will also open for direct shipping on July 1, although the paperwork has not yet been finalized. Tennessee’s license is available for pre-order pending the state’s posting.
Tennessee keeps the ball rolling on direct shipping
June 5th, 2009
Governor Phil Bredesen signed Senate Bill 166 into law today. With the passage of the bill, Tennessee will legally open its doors to winery direct shipping on July 1, 2009. Tennessee prohibited direct shipments from out-of-state wineries long before the landmark Granholm case. Even onsite shipments of wine were disallowed when the Attorney General issued an opinion on the matter in February 2009. Attempts to pass direct shipping legislation in the past years have failed, unaided by a Tennessee wholesaler campaign against the bills during the 2008 legislative session. However, with the Governor’s signature, in-state and out-of-state wineries alike now have access to Tennessee wine consumers. Direct shippers can expect to pay an annual license fee of $150 (an initial application fee of $300 is required for new applicants) and remit monthly sales and gallonage taxes. Some less positive aspects of the new laws include a 3 case annual shipping limit from a winery to a consumer and restrictions on who can obtain the direct shipper’s license—retailers, unfortunately, are among the excluded.
Although retailers will not be among those celebrating on July 1, the passage of SB 166 is a huge victory for many direct shippers. Governor Bredesen’s signature signals a radical change in the state’s stance on wine sold through the direct shipping channel: Tennessee is the first state to reverse its stance on direct shipments for wine since Vermont in 2006. The effective date of this legislation is less than a month away, however, there is no word, yet, on when all necessary forms will be available, so stay tuned.
Wine Freedom in the South? Tennessee Direct Shipping Bill Passes the Senate
April 27th, 2009
Tennessee, one of 13 states that still bans direct-to-consumer shipping, took steps towards ending that association on April 13, 2009 when the Senate-approved Senate Bill 166, which allows direct shipments of wine. Currently, anyone who transports wine into Tennessee by bypassing the three-tier system is committing a felony (see Section 57-3-401.b of the Tennessee Code) an act that bill sponsor Senator Paul Stanley says is already widely committed. Due to this continuous violation of existing law, Senator Stanley calls SB 166 a “common-sense bill.” Senate Bill 166 requires out-of-state wineries to obtain a $300 license non-refundable application fee and $150 annual permit fee and also sets a shipping limit of 3 cases per calendar year per individual consumer.
During the Senate Committee hearings, there was lengthy questioning regarding enforcement mechanisms to ensure out-of-state wineries are in compliance. Senator Tim Burchett also voiced concerns about the lack of jurisdiction that the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission has over out-of-state wineries, to which committee chair Senator Bill Ketron responded with a quote from Section 1.C.2 of the bill, which states that applicants must, “execute a consent to jurisdiction and venue of all actions… in the state of Tennessee.” Senator Ketron also noted other enforcement mechanisms such as a clause that makes direct shipping without a permit a Class (E) Felony. Primary Sponsor Senator Stanley addressed the doubts about enforcement and compliance by pointing to many other states that have successfully instituted and enforced direct shipping laws. In addition to mentioning the success of other direct-shipping states, bill supporters also noted that SB166 could bring in an estimated $10 million in additional annual revenue.
The approved version of the bill was passed in the Senate by a 22-8 margin with two amendments, imposed by the Senate Finance, Ways and Means committee. The first amendment reduced the total annual wine shipments allowed to one resident to 27-Liters from the original 108 Liters per year, with a one case per month limit. The second amendment was apparently inserted with no specific purpose except to appease the three-tier distribution system by stating that nothing in the direct shipping bill is meant to “diminish the three-tiered scheme.” The Senate-approved version of SB 166 also requires wineries to report the appropriate sales and gallonage taxes, and direct shippers must keep records of all shipments in case the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission requests such information. Now that the bill has moved through the Senate, it awaits discussion and approval by the House Government Operations Committee.
In February, Tennessee’s Attorney General chose to level-down by banning all direct-to-consumer shipments and transports of wine for personal use. Only two months later, however, the passage of SB 166 in the Senate demonstrates willingness to accommodate consumer demand by opening up the state to direct shipping.
Tennessee’s AG Rules Consumers May Not Bring Wine into Tennessee, Federal On-Site Provision No Longer Applies
February 27th, 2009
On February 24th, 2009, Tennessee’s Attorney General issued Opinion No. 09-15, which concluded that consumers may not legally carry any amount of wine on their person into Tennessee. This ruling, prohibiting consumers from carrying wine into Tennessee, means that the federal on-site provision does not apply to consumers in Tennessee. Wineries are therefore prohibited from making shipments via common carrier to Tennessee consumers under any circumstance. All wine must enter Tennessee through the 3-tier system without exception.
On a positive note, a number of favorable direct shipping bills (Bill H 1155, S 166 & S 1690) have been introduced and are currently awaiting action in the Tennessee legislature. If enacted, these bills would create a direct-to-consumer shipping permit for wineries, allowing for the payment of taxes and reporting. Wineries with a permit would be able to ship up to 24 cases a year to Tennessee consumers, depending on which bill might pass.
Annie Bones, State Relations – Wine Institute
Appeals Court Calls for More Facts in Challenge to Tennessee On-site Law
October 27th, 2008
The October 24th decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Jelovsek v. Bredesen has been widely reported as upholding face-to-face on-site purchase requirements for winery sales to consumers. There is, however, an interesting disconnect between what the district court said when it dismissed the complaint and what the appellate court said in partly affirming the dismissal.
In March 2007 the district court judge upheld a statutory scheme he understood as an exception to the otherwise mandatory three-tier system, allowing Tennessee residents to buy wine at a Tennessee winery that used a certain proportion of Tennessee fruit and to transport the purchase in quantities of up to three gallons, while limiting transportation of out-of-state wine purchases to one gallon. The circuit judge, speaking for a three-judge appellate court, clearly upheld laws requiring both in-state and out-of-state wineries to use Tennessee’s three-tier system and clearly reversed the district court’s upholding the exception. The appellate opinion does not, however, say that Tennessee may continue allowing Tennessee wineries to sell at their premises to consumers so long as the transportation quantities are equalized.
What the opinion appears to leave open is the fundamental question in the lawsuit: whether Tennessee can prohibit direct shipment to its residents by out-of-state wineries while allowing in-state wineries to sell out of their tasting rooms. The first line of attack on that proposition is that on-premises sale requirements, though literally neutral, so obviously favor nearby wineries over more distant ones that they should be analyzed as facially discriminatory against interstate commerce, putting the burden on the state to demonstrate that the differential is indispensable for carrying out a legitimate state objective. The second line is that, even if we read on-site requirements as facially neutral, the harm to interstate commerce from the difference in access to the market outweighs any benefit the differential may confer on the state; under that analysis, the plaintiffs, rather than the state, have the burden of factual proof. The main line of defense is that the differential is a mere “accident of geography” without Commerce Clause significance. Lower courts in other cases have disagreed on which view is correct.
The Sixth Circuit held that discrimination in favor of Tennessee wineries would have to end and noted that good arguments in principle exist for leveling up and for leveling down. In the absence of a sufficient record for choosing one or the other, it remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The opinion provides no instructions on how much change would be required to achieve a level playing field if the district court decides to extend equivalent benefits to out-of-state wineries, rather than reduce privileges of in-state wineries. Thus, it looks as if the plaintiffs have an opportunity on remand to provide support for their proposition that leveling up requires allowing direct shipment.
An Accident On The Way To Court
March 25th, 2008
The February 26, 2008 decision by an Arizona federal district court in Black Star Farms LLC v. Oliver supports an in-person purchase requirement, one of the principal legislative attacks on the level-field principle enunciated in Granholm.
In-person purchase as a precondition to direct shipment solves a fundamental political problem for the middle tier. Although Granholm allows states to eliminate discrimination against interstate direct shipment by forbidding in-state shipment, pursuing that “level down” strategy requires extravagant expenditure of political capital, because it constitutes a death sentence for a significant fraction of local wineries. Thus, wholesaler trade associations are faced with reconciling survival of direct shipment for local wineries with the core objective of forcing wineries in other states to go through three tiers, a conceptual problem after Granholm.
The solution is the “accident of geography” theory, which contends that the impracticality of, e.g., an Arizona consumer’s visiting a Yakima Valley winery to place an order for a wine advertised on the Internet, compared to the convenience of visiting an Arizona winery for the same purpose, does not discriminate against interstate commerce. The Black Star court, like a New York federal district court in Buy Right, Inc. v. Boyle and a Tennessee federal district court in Jelovsek v. Bresden, appears to have bought the theory; federal district courts in the Kentucky case, Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC v. Hudgins, and the Indiana case, Baud v. Heath, rejected it. Appeals are reportedly under way in the fourth, sixth and seventh federal circuits; if the plaintiffs appeal in Black Star, the ninth circuit will also be involved.
At first impression, the wholesalers’ argument does not seem logical. With respect to governmental restrictions, the Commerce Clause is supposed to provide equal access to markets for interstate commerce originating in any location. True, it does not require states to neutralize natural effects of geography, such as the greater cost of shipping from a distant point, but the trade restriction in question arises from the legislative pen, not from geography itself. For legislation, the Commerce Clause supports location parity by voiding state enactments with substantial discriminatory effects, including the effect of leveraging location advantages of local businesses against distant competitors.
Ironically, the court in Black Star appears to have recognized that aspect of the Commerce Clause, as it cited a 1994 Supreme Court case on the subject, C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, which invalidated a facially neutral city ordinance requiring all nonhazardous solid waste received and processed in the town to be deposited at the defendant township’s transfer station. The fatal flaw of the Clarkstown ordinance was that in practice it favored local waste management business to the exclusion of all non-local competition, which sounds pretty similar to a three-tier requirement for out-of-state businesses, but the Black Star court decided not to follow that precedent for reasons that are difficult to divine in its opinion.
There is, nevertheless, a solid basis for the anti-trade result in Black Star and other recent cases, which is widely (and perhaps erroneously) understood as endorsement of a geographic accident defense to Granholm-based suits. If there were only one message I’d want readers of these blogs and Notes on Wine Distribution to take away from discussion of Granholm, it would be the enormous evidentiary difference between a facial discrimination case like Granholm itself and a de facto discrimination case like Black Star. The latter category, which includes challenges to volume caps as well as to on-site limitations, requires much more extensive preparation, with economic expert testimony, to satisfy the plaintiffs’ substantial burden of proof. The Black Star judge underlines that point in refusing to reach the same result as Hudgins and Baude: “However, Plaintiffs proffer no evidence to suggest that such a limited exception, applicable to both in-state and out-of-state wineries, erects a barrier to Arizona’s wine market that in effect creates a burden that alters the proportional share of the wine market in favor of in-state wineries, such that out-of-state wineries are unable to effectively compete in the Arizona market.” Providing the kind of evidence the court would have to see before invalidating a facially neutral statute adds something like $150,000 on top of all the other costs of the litigation, which should be a sobering, but not surprising, fact for enthusiasts of law reform by litigation, and especially for those who think Granholm provides a lay-down slam in direct shipment cases.
Tennessee Wholesalers – Crossing the Line?
March 24th, 2008
There are a couple of direct shipping bills in the Tennessee legislature that would allow Tennessee consumers to order wine from any winery or retailer in the country, with some of the regular restrictions. This would be a big deal, considering direct shipments into Tennessee have not been allowed from any state in recent history. However, what would normally be a run-of-the-mill direct shipping bill has turned into a subject of controversy over actions taken by Tennessee wholesalers to sway public opinion of the bill.
Wine Spectator Online reports that Tennessee wholesalers have been sending direct-mail and online initiatives to Tennessee residents, saying that SB 1977 and its counterpart, HB 1850 are a threat to Tennessee’s youth and asking them to sign a petition for children to come first. Jackson, one of the authors of the bill, has notified the Tennessee ethics commission of the wholesalers’ intent, saying that this is illegal lobbying because the direct-mail and online initiatives say nothing about being funded by the Tennessee wholesalers. He argues, “[those who view the teen drinking initiatives] think it’s some sort of philanthropic organization that’s concerned about youth consumption of alcohol. But the populous is deprived of the ability to find out who’s really behind this campaign” and that the bill wouldn’t increase availability of wine to minors. Tom Wark of the Specialty Wine Retailers Association issued a press release about Tennessee SB 1977 and has this to say about minors obtaining wine via direct shipping:
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission both looked at the issue and determined that minors are highly unlikely to use direct shipping to obtain wine. No state that allows direct shipping has reported even a small problem with minors accessing wine via direct shipping.
That being said, we should focus on what is really important about this bill: consumer choice. If passed, SB 1977 would allow permitted wine manufacturers, producers, suppliers, importers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers to ship wine directly to Tennessee residents. Permitted shippers could ship no more than 18 liters per year to an of-age Tennessee resident in a “wet” area. The permitted shipper would have to pay a $100 application fee, a $50 annual license fee, and pay sales and excise taxes on all shipments.
Wine Distribution Notes – Release 26
March 6th, 2008
Release 26 of Notes on Wine Distribution by R. Corbin Houchins is now available for viewing.
These notes are a great resource for keeping up to date with developing trends in direct shipping and direct distribution. As always, you can find the most recent version of these notes at the ShipCompliant Blog by clicking on the “Wine Distribution Notes” link under “Compliance Resources” on the right hand side of the page.
Each new release shows green highlighting on sections with changes from the preceding release. Release 26 highlights changes from the last two releases: highlights from release 25 include updates to Alaska, Maryland, New Mexico and Tennessee. Highlights from release 26 include updates to Florida, Indiana, and others. Read the notes to find out what else is new.
Free the Grapes! Legislation and Litigation Update
August 8th, 2007
From Jeremy Benson at Free the Grapes! :
Free the Grapes! Media Update
August 2007
Now that we’re at the end of most state legislative sessions, we thought it timely to provide an update on direct-to-consumer (DTC) wine direct shipping as of month-end July 2007. Here are some highlights, followed by a more detailed description.
Highlights:
o DTC legislation was considered in 23 states;
o Two states transitioned from reciprocal to a DTC permit system (MO, WV) with additional states pending (OR, IL).
o The legal direct shipping states for wineries represent 78% of wine consumption in the U.S., although retailers can reach far fewer states.
Wins:
- Florida: the third largest state for wine enjoyment, remains a legal state for winery shipments after a fierce defense of the court order that allowed shipping;
- Hawaii: a concerted effort to reduce quantity limits failed;
- Missouri: transitioned from reciprocal to permit status (no fee);
- North Dakota: increased shipping quantity limits;
- Virginia: now allows Internet retailers without a physical presence to direct ship;
- West Virginia: replaced reciprocal status with permit bill.
Losses:
- Arkansas: DTC permit bill failed in committee;
- New Mexico: reciprocal transition bill failed due largely to opposition by wholesalers and the beer lobby;
- Georgia: effort to replace cumbersome law with permit bill failed;
- Texas: passed a law limiting DTC shipping from in-state retailers outside their particular county;
- Ohio: passed potentially unworkable permit system for DTC shipments, including capacity cap of 150,000 gallons;
- Legal rulings supported the on-site sale requirement in ME, and opposed a challenge to TN’s shipping prohibition.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Wine Institute provided significant input to the following summary of state activity this year.
States with Legislation Under Consideration
Wisconsin – For 20 years, Wisconsin has been a reciprocal state, allowing its consumers to purchase wine directly from wineries as well as in-state wine retailers. But consumers will lose these privileges if the Budget Bill passes as it is currently written. Anti-consumer provisions were slipped into the Senate version of the 384-page, $66 billion, two-year Budget Bill in mid-July. The conference committee will now reconcile differences in the Senate and Assembly versions of the budget bill.
Illinois – House Bill 429 passed both House and Senate and is before the governor for signature. It creates a winery-only DTC shipping permit that replaces the existing reciprocity law. The Specialty Wine Retailers Association was unsuccessful in securing an amendment continuing shipments from out-of-state retailers, although in-state retailers were successful at maintaining their in-state shipping privilege.
Additional States
Alaska –House Bill 34 (Ledoux) would specifically allow in-state wineries to make DTC shipments to AK consumers, with a 5-gallon per shipment limit. Status: passed House and Senate, and was signed by the Governor on 5/31/07.
Arkansas – Senate Bill 592 (Whitaker), a positive bill that would have created a DTC shippers permit for wineries, died in House Rules Committee March 30.
Connecticut — Senate Bill 1204 was passed into law and changes the time period specified in the DTC shipping statute from 60 days to 2 months for the 5 gallon limit.
Florida – Shipping into FL is continues to be legal after competing bills—with and without discriminatory capacity caps—were considered but ultimately died in committees.
Georgia – House Bill 159 (Willard) and its companion Senate Bill 56 (Untermann) would have replaced the state’s convoluted shipping law with a DTC shipping license for all wineries (and retailers in SB56). The bills died in committee. Wholesaler-supported House Bill 393 (Stephens) sought to create new “domestic farm winery” and national “farm winery” categories with discriminatory capacity caps. The bill died in committee.
Hawaii – House Bill 1093 (Say) and Senate Bill 1019 (Taniguchi) sought to reduce consumer choice by limiting shipments under the existing DTC shipping permit from six cases per winery per consumer per year, to six cases per household per year. Both bills died in committee.
Idaho – House Bill 11 would have modified the permit legislation passed in 2006 to allow wholesalers and retailers in Idaho and other states to ship wine directly to consumers. Bill died in committee.
Maine – Senate Bill 54 (Bromley) would have created a DTC shippers permit for wine & beer. The bill passed the Senate on 6/12/07, but was killed in the house later that week.
Missouri — The Governor of Missouri signed SB 299 transitioning Missouri from a reciprocal state to a permit state effective August 28, 2007. The new permit law requires all wineries to obtain a direct shipping permit (no fee), limit shipments to two cases per consumer per month, submit an annual report by January 31, and pay excise taxes. The direct shipping permit application and instructions are available on the Wine Institute website at www.wineinstitute.org/programs/shipwine.
Nebraska – L441 (Mcdonald) will allocate funds raised by the existing $500 DTC shipper license fee paid by all wineries to be deposited to the NE Winery and Grape Producers Promotional Fund. The bill was signed by the Governor on May 30, 2007.
New Mexico – House Bill 1018 (Silva) passed the House, but was killed in the Senate after intense pressure from wholesalers and the beer lobby. It would have replaced reciprocity with a DTC shipping permit for wineries and retailers.
North Dakota – Senate Bill 2135 was signed into law and makes favorable changes to existing DTC shipping provisions, including: increased quantity limit from one to three cases per month, removed “reciprocal” provision passed in 2005 but never implemented, and removed vague language.
Ohio – During closing stages of budget process an amendment was adopted that will create a potentially unworkable permit system for DTC shipments into Ohio. The law has a capacity cap of 150,000 gallons, along with “per family household” aggregate limit that may prevent wineries from being able to ship even if they qualify for the permit. The bill was signed by the Governor on June 30 and becomes effective October 1, 2007.
Oklahoma – Several bills in the House and Senate were introduced, including a voter referendum to allow OK consumers to receive DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries, but a permit system has not been outlined. All bills died in committee.
Oregon – House Bill 2171 (Minnis) would transition state from a reciprocal DTC to a permit system for wineries and retailers. Status: The bill passed the House & Senate, and was sent to the Governor for signature in June.
Pennsylvania – House Bill 255 (Godshall) and Senate Bill 293 (Ferlo) are positive DTC shipping permit bills with a $100 registration fee, two cases per month to any individual. Taxes collected. Status: Both bills remain in Committee.
Tennessee – House Bill 1850 (Todd) creates a DTC shipping permit for 2 cases annually. Provisions: $100 fee, annual reports, annual excise and sales tax payments (companion bill was SB 1977, Stanley). Both bills died in Committee.
Texas – Senate Bill 1229 (Gallegos) was signed by the governor May 5, and limits the ability of TX retailers to use common carriers for DTC delivery outside their particular county. The bill was aimed at pending litigation spearheaded by the Specialty Wine Retailers Association seeking statewide sales via common carrier.
Virginia – House Bill 1784 (Cosgrove) and Senate Bill 1289 (Watkins) augmented current direct shipper permit to clarify that those shipments are by common carrier only, and created separate allowance for any legal shipper to make deliveries of up to 4 cases of wine to a consumer in their own vehicle. Additionally, Senate Bill 984 (Edwards) also became law, creating an “internet wine retailer license” to allow sales by a retailer having no physical premise.
West Virginia – Senate Bill 712 (Kessler) was signed by the governor and, among many other provisions, replaced reciprocity with a DTC permit bill for wineries, wholesalers and retailers.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Maine – As previously reported elsewhere, on March 5, U.S. District Court Judge Carter adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation issued three months ago in the Cherry Hill (Tanford/Epstein) suit. This ruling supports an on-site sale requirement for any sales to consumers, contrary to an opinion rendered in December 2006 in KY ruling that on-site provisions were unconstitutional.
Tennessee – As previously reported elsewhere, the U.S. District Court in Tennessee ruled in favor of the state regarding what most thought was an ill-advised lawsuit (Jelovsek v. Bresden). The plaintiffs alleged that consumers faced a greater burden in traveling to another state to purchase wine in person at a winery than they faced in buying wine directly from a TN winery tasting room. The judge was not convinced, and the wholesalers have promoted their “victory” to bolster arguments for the preeminence of the 3-tier system in all matters.
Texas – All summary judgment motions have been filed. Oral arguments are scheduled for September 21 in Dallas. Wholesalers claim that passage of Senate Bill 1229 moots this lawsuit (see Texas paragraph under legislation, above).
Massachusetts — Motions for summary judgment are expected this winter in the case that seeks to overturn the 30,000 gallon production cap in the DTC law. Family Winemakers of California is the lead plaintiff.
Free The Grapes! legislative update
March 19th, 2007
Free the Grapes! recently provided an update on direct to consumer shipping legislation and litigation for 2007. As you can see below, many changes are likely to come this year.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Wine Institute provided the following summary of direct shipping legislation around the country.
Alaska –House Bill 34 (Ledoux) would specifically allow in-state wineries to make DTC shipments to AK consumers, with a 5-gallon per shipment limit. Status: passed House 2/14/07 and moves to Senate Community and Regional Affairs and to Senate Labor and Commerce.
Arkansas – Senate Bill 592 (Whitaker), a positive bill, creates a DTC shippers permit for wineries. Provisions include: 24 cases annually, $10 permit application fee, sales and excise tax payments annually. Status: Introduced.
Connecticut — Senate Bill 1204 (Joint Committee on General Law) makes a change to the time period specified in the DTC shipping statute from 60 days to 2 months for the 5 gallon limit. Status: Passed out of General Law on 2/27/07.
Florida – Shipping into FL is currently legal. Senate Bill 126 (Saunders) and SB 2282 (Geller) would implement a version of the industry’s model direct shipping bill, but both bills include a discriminatory 250,000 gallon capacity cap opposed by consumers and wineries. Alternatively, House Bill 1217 (Bogdanoff) does not include a cap.
Georgia – House Bill 159 (Willard) and its companion Senate Bill 56 (Untermann) create a DTC shipping license for all wineries (and retailers in SB56), repealing existing law which prohibits wineries with a wholesaler from obtaining a license. Other provisions: $100 permit fee, 24-case annual limit, sales and excise taxes to be collected. This bill is getting industry support.
The wholesaler’s House Bill 393 (Stephens) includes a discriminatory 100,000 gallon capacity cap, creates a new “domestic farm winery” using at least 50% GA grapes, and a national “farm winery” definition of a winery under 100,000 gallons that uses at least 40% grapes from its state of domicile. Such wineries can obtain a DTC shipping permit to ship up to 20 cases of wine per consumer annually. Status: Favorably reported out of House Regulated Industries Committee on 2/21/07.
Hawaii – Two bills, House Bill 1093 (Say) and Senate bill 1019 (Taniguchi), appear to be dead in committee. They would have reduced consumer choice by limiting shipments under the existing DTC shipping permit to 6 cases annually per household from an aggregate of wineries (current system is 6 cases per winery).
Idaho – House Bill 11 would modify the permit legislation passed in 2006 to allow wholesalers and retailers in Idaho and other states to ship wine directly to consumers. Status: Referred to House Revenue and Taxation on 1/22/07.
Illinois – House Bill 429 (Acevedo) is similar to last year’s transition bill that creates a winery-only DTC shipping permit to replace the existing reciprocity law. Provisions include a tiered permit fee based on size of the winery from $150 to $1,000, 12 cases annually, with sales and excise tax collection. Free the Grapes! is encouraging inclusion of retailers in the bill. Status: Passed from House Consumer Protection Committee on 2/20/07 by vote of 11-0. There is also a similar bill in the Senate (SB123, Silverstein).
Iowa – ABC hearings were held on 2/24/07. The ABC recommended to legislators that the reciprocity statute be replaced with a DTC shipping permit system. Other proposals addressed at the hearing include changing the local winery preferential tax rate, changes in Iowa wine labeling rules for IA wineries, and changes to existing designation of 5% of wine tax revenues to Iowa Wine Development Board. Status: Awaiting action by legislature.
Maine – Senate Bill 54 (Bromley) creates DTC shippers permit for wine & beer. Winery or retailer obtains a COA and nonresident shipper’s license ($100 fee). Annual sales and excise tax payments required. Status: Introduced.
Missouri – House Bill 944 (Cooper) creates a DTC permit for wineries to ship 2 cases per month, and requires permit and tax collection. Carriers must obtain permit. Amendment to add retailers drafted on 2/26/07. Status: Introduced.
Montana – Senate Bill 524 (Wanzenried) proposes changes such as adding “purposely, knowingly or negligently” language to the connoisseur’s license, which does not currently work for consumers or wineries. Status: Reported “Do Pass” from Senate Business, Labor and Economic Affairs on 2/21/07.
New Mexico – House Bill 1018 (Silva) creates DTC shipping permit for wineries and retailers to replace reciprocity. Provisions: $50 fee, pay excise and Gross Receipts Tax, 24 cases annually. Status: Passed favorably on 9-1 vote from House Business & Industries Committee on 2/25/07. Companion bill is Senate Bill 1047 (Taylor).
New York – Interestingly, Assembly Bill 4345 (Destito) replicates the wine DTC shipping program for beer manufacturers and beer wholesalers. Free the Grapes! has no activities or campaigns concerning this bill because it deals with beer and not wine. Status: Introduced.
North Dakota – Senate Bill 2135 (Senate Finance and Taxation Committee) makes changes to existing DTC shipping statute. Provisions: increases amount of shipments to 3 cases per month (currently 1 case per month), removes “reciprocal” provision passed in 2005 but never implemented. Removed vague language that could have been interpreted to allow an in-state winery to also hold a wholesalers license – clarifies no self-distribution, which was believed to be the case by in-state industry at this time anyway. Status: Passed Senate 1/23/07 and now to House Finance and Taxation.
Oklahoma – Several bills in the House and Senate have been introduced, several of which request a voter referendum to allow OK consumers to receive DTC shipments from out-of-state wineries, but a permit system has not been outlined.
Oregon – House Bill 2171 (Minnis) transitions OR from a reciprocal DTC to a permit system. Would cover wineries only. Status: Introduced. This is the OLCC bill. House Bill 2488 (House Business and Labor Committee) is similar, allowing wineries, retailers and “associations” to obtain permits. $50 fee. Excise taxes to be paid. Unlimited shipments. Status: Introduced.
Pennsylvania – House Bill 255 (Godshall) is a positive DTC shipping permit bill with a $100 registration fee, 2 cases per month to any individual. Taxes collected. Status: Introduced.
Tennessee – House Bill 1850 (Todd) creates a DTC shipping permit for 2 cases annually. Provisions: $100 fee, annual reports, annual excise and sales tax payments. Status: Introduced. Companion bill in Senate (1977, Stanley).
Virginia – Senate Bill 984 (Edwards) creates an “internet wine retailer license” to allow sales by a retailer having no physical premise. Status: Passed both House and Senate and sent to Governor on 2/22/07.
West Virginia – Senate Bill 712 (Kessler) is an omnibus liquor bill, that among many provisions, includes creation of a DTC shipping permit for wineries, wholesalers and retailers. Provisions include: $150 permit fee, 2 cases per month, sales and excise tax payments. Removes self distribution privilege for instate wineries. Original 50% tax increase has been removed. Creates a “wine spa” license, a wine B&B license, and a “mini” winery license to replace farm winery permits.
LITIGATION UPDATE
Texas — The Specialty Wine Retailers Association (SWRA, www.specialtywineretailers.org) litigation in Texas to address that state’s discriminatory stance between in-state and out-of-state retailers is in its discovery phase. Until the case is decided, out-of-state retailers may continue to ship to Texas consumers.
Massachusetts — The Family Winemakers of California reports that its lawsuit against the State of Massachusetts seeking to overturn the 30,000 gallon production cap in the DTC law is still in the discovery phase. Once discovery is complete both sides will be preparing motions for summary judgment for later in the year.
The second wave of the Granholm tsunami
November 7th, 2006
Two states now have court cases that illustrate the second wave of the Granholm tsunami. Explicit discrimination in favor of local wineries relative to out-of-state wineries is, in theory at least, already washed away. We now see another crest on the horizon, aspiring to wipe out de facto discrimination –where the formal text of the challenged regulatory scheme is non-discriminatory, but the result disadvantages interstate commerce. The first case of that category to render a dispositive ruling was Huber Winery v. Wilcher, noted in a previous post.
On October 10, 2006 a federal district court in Tennessee consolidated two cases before it. One is the 2006 S.L. Thomas Family Winery suit, in which both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings, the plaintiff relying on Granholm, and the state asserting inherent 21st Amendment powers. The state contends that its laws deny direct shipment equally to all wineries, making the suit a de facto discrimination case based on differential inconvenience, similar in that respect to Huber, in which the court rejected the state’s proposed leveling down to on-site sales for all wineries because of the greater burden of visiting a California winery relative to a local winery.
The other case is Jelovsek v. Bredesen, a consumer action filed about a month after the Granholm decision in 2005. In June 2006, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Jelovsek, which had argued that a consumer, as distinct from a winery licensee, does not suffer the kind of harm to an interest required for judicial relief. That argument (challenging a plaintiff’s to “standing to sue”) seems unlikely to succeed in a properly conducted Commerce Clause discrimination case, in view of the Granholm opinion’s reference to a consumer right of access to national markets. In any event, the defendants appear to concede that the standing issue has been taken out of the S.L. Thomas Family Winery case by consolidation with Jelovsek.
Lawsuit filed in Tennessee
October 22nd, 2006
Add Tennessee to the list of at least nine states that have ongoing direct to consumer litigation. A “wine enthusiast” recently filed a lawsuit in Tennessee to challenge the laws prohibiting the direct shipment of wine to consumers. Tennessee currently is a felony state that allows for a one gallon federal onsite provision, but otherwise forces wineries to use the three tier system to get wine to consumers.
